Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Advances in Physiology Education is dedicated to the improvement of teaching and learning physiology, both in specialized
courses and in the broader context of general biology education. It is published four times a year in March, June, September and
December by the American Physiological Society, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD 20814-3991. Copyright 2005 by the
American Physiological Society. ISSN: 1043-4046, ESSN: 1522-1229. Visit our website at http://www.the-aps.org/.
How We Learn
THE PUBLICATION
159
How We Learn
160
30 DECEMBER 2006
How We Learn
ACTIVE LEARNING EVIDENCE
30 DECEMBER 2006
161
How We Learn
162
30 DECEMBER 2006
a meta-analysis of 164 studies of cooperative learning methods; they conclude that there is solid evidence in these studies
to support the benefits of cooperative learning.
In the disciplines, there are impressive results that support
the power of getting students to work together to learn. In the
field of computer-aided instruction, there is a wealth of data
showing that two or more students working together at the
computer learn more than students working alone (40, 93). In
physics, students generate better solutions to problems when
they work cooperative than when they work alone (34), and
peer instruction, developed by Mazur (51), has been shown to
increase student mastery of conceptual reasoning and quantitative problem solving (20). In chemistry, students in cooperative learning groups show increased retention and higher
scores on assessments than students learning the same material
in conventional ways (21).
Michael and Modell (61) have argued that the similarities that
these approaches share are more important than their differences.
While there can be little doubt that students working together
learn more, the key issue now is how to implement small group
work to achieve maximum learning (17).
It is worth noting that there are many factors in a cooperative
learning environment, whatever its specific format, that are
thought to contribute to the success achieved. One of these is
clearly the requirement that participants talk to one another,
articulating their understanding of the subject matter, and
asking and answering questions. As will be discussed below,
these behaviors are now known to facilitate learning in all
disciplines.
5. Meaningful learning is facilitated by articulating explanations, whether to ones self, peers, or teachers. It is a
common belief that a central part of learning any discipline is
learning the language of that discipline (Ref. 45 has an extended
discussion of this idea, and Ref. 25 discusses a variety of language-related issues in tutoring students to solve cardiovascular
problems). Learning a language requires practice using that language, and it is thus important that students have the opportunity
to both hear (and read) and speak (or write) the language of the
discipline being learned. Evens and Michael (25) have discussed
the importance of language in learning cardiovascular physiology,
whether from a human or a computer tutor. However, there is a
more specific benefit of encouraging students to explicitly articulate their understanding of a topic. A large body of research,
much of it by Chi (15, 16), has demonstrated that articulating
self-explanations and using self-explanation improves learning.
Rivard and Straw (91) have demonstrated that both talking about
and writing about ecological concepts improves meaningful learning and retention.
The five big ideas described here represent the basic
science foundation for teaching and learning that should form
the basis for what we do to help our students learn, whether in
our classrooms or outside of them. In the next section, I will
review some of the applications of these ideas (and the results
of some research) in four science disciplines: physics, chemistry, biology, and physiology.
How We Learn
ACTIVE LEARNING EVIDENCE
30 DECEMBER 2006
163
How We Learn
164
30 DECEMBER 2006
How We Learn
ACTIVE LEARNING EVIDENCE
30 DECEMBER 2006
165
How We Learn
166
authors thoughts about this paper. The author also thanks Dr. Dee Silverthorn,
who made valuable suggestions that were incorporated into the paper.
REFERENCES
30 DECEMBER 2006
1. Alexander PA and Murphy PK. The research base for APAs learnercentered psychological principles. In: How Students Learn: Reforming
Schools Through Learner-Centered Education, edited by Lambert NM
and McCombs BL. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association,
1998, p. 25 60.
2. Anderson JR. The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press, 1983.
3. Arnaudin MW and Mintzes JJ. Students alternative conceptions of the
human circulatory system: a cross-age study. Sci Educ 69: 721733,
1985.
4. Association of American Medical Colleges. Physicians for the TwentyFirst Century, the GPEP Report. Washington, DC: Association of
American Medical College, 1984.
5. Ausable DP. The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New
York: Grune and Stratton, 1963.
6. Barr RB and Tagg J. From teaching to learninga new paradigm for
undergraduate education. Change: 1325, 1995.
7. Barrows HS and Tamblyn RM. Problem-Based Learning: an Approach to Medical Education. New York: Springer, 1980.
8. Berliner DC. Educational research: the hardest science of them all.
Educational Researcher 31: 18 20, 2002.
9. Blumenfeld PC, Marx RW, Solloway E, and Krajcik J. Learning with
peers: from small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher 25: 37 40, 1996.
10. Bossert ST. Cooperative activities in the classroom. Rev Res Educ 15:
225250, 1998/1989.
11. Bransford JD, Brown AL, and Cocking RR (editors). How People
Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National
Academy, 1999.
12. Briscoe C and LaMaster SU. Meaningful learning in college biology
through concept mapping. Am Biol Teacher 53: 214 219, 1991.
13. Burrowes PA. Lords constructivist model put to a test. Am Biol Teacher
65: 491502, 2003.
14. Chi MTH. Commonsense concepts of emergent processes: why some
misconceptions are robust. J Learn Sci 14: 161199, 2005.
15. Chi MTH, de Leeuw N, Chiu MH, and LaVancher C. Eliciting
self-explanations improves understanding. Cog Sci 18: 438 477, 1994.
16. Chi MTH, Bassok M, Lewis MW, Reimann P, and Glaser R. Selfexplanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve
problems. Cog Sci 13: 145182, 1989.
17. Cohen EG. Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small
groups. Rev Educational Res 64: 135, 1994.
18. Collins JW 3rd and OBrien NP (editors). The Greenwood Dictionary
of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2003.
19. Correa BB, Pinto PR, and Rendas AB. How do learning issues relate
with content in a problem-based learning pathophysiology course? Advan
Physiol Educ 27: 62 69, 2003.
20. Crouch CH and Mazur E. Peer instruction: ten years of experience and
results. Am J Physics 69: 970 977, 2001.
21. Dougherty RC, Bower CW, Berger T, Rees W, Mellon EK, and
Pulliam E. Cooperative learning and enhanced communication: effects
on student performance, retention, and attitudes in general chemistry.
J Chemical Educ 72: 793797, 1995.
22. Driver R, Asojo R, Leach J, Mortimer E, and Scott P. Constructing
scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher 23: 512,
1994.
23. Eisenhart M and Towne L. Contestation and change in national policy
on scientifically based educational research. Educational Researcher
32: 3138, 2003.
24. Eisobu GO and Soyibo K. Effects of concept and vee mapping under
three learning models on students cognitive achievement in ecology and
genetics. J Res Sci Teach 32: 971995, 1995.
25. Evens M and Michael J. One-on-One Tutoring by Humans and Computers. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2006.
26. Fisher KM, Wandersee JH, and Moody DE (editors). Mapping Biology Knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2000.
27. Gabel DL (editor). Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and
Learning. New York: Macmillan, 1994.
How We Learn
ACTIVE LEARNING EVIDENCE
of diffusion and osmosis after a course of instruction. J Res Sci Teach 32:
45 61, 1995.
85. Pedersen S and Liu M. Teachers beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centered learning environment. Educ Technol Res Dev
51: 5776, 2003.
86. Perkins DN and Salomon G. Transfer and teaching thinking. In:
Thinking: The Second International Conference, edited by Perkins DN,
Lochhead J, and Bishop J. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1987, p. 285303.
87. Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng
Educ 93: 223231, 2004.
88. Qulez-Pardo J and Solaz-Portoles JJ. Students and teachers misapplication of LeChateliers principle: implications for the teaching of
chemical equilibrium. J Res Sci Teach 32: 939 957, 1995.
89. Rawson RE and Quinlan KM. Evaluation of a computer-based approach to teaching acid/base physiology. Advan Physiol Educ 26: 8597,
2002.
90. Richardson D and Speck D. Addressing students misconceptions of
renal clearance. Advan Physiol Educ 28: 210 212, 2004.
91. Rivard LP and Straw SB. The effect of talk and writing on learning
science: an exploratory study. Sci Educ 84: 566 593, 2000.
92. Romiszowski A. The development of physical skills: instruction in the
psychomotor domain. In: Instructional-Design Theories and Models: a
New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, edited by Reigeluth CM. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1999, vol. II, p. 457 481.
93. Rovick AA and Michael JA. The predictions table: a tool for assessing
students knowledge. Advan Physiol Educ 8: 3336, 1992.
94. Ryle G. The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson, 1949.
95. Savinainen A and Scott P. Using the force concept inventory to monitor
student learning and to plan teaching. Physics Educ 37: 5358, 2002.
96. Segal JW, and Chipman SF, and Glaser R (editors). Teaching and
Learning Skills: Relating Instruction to Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, vol. 1, 1985.
97. Shaffer PS and McDermott LC. Research as a guide for curriculum
development: an example from introductory electricity. Part II: design of
instructional strategies. Am J Physics 60: 10031013, 1992.
98. Simon HA. Learning to research about learning. In: Cognition and
Instruction: Twenty-Five Years of Progress, edited by Carver SM and
Klahr D. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001, p. 205226.
99. Sinatra GM and Pintrich PR (editors). Intentional Conceptual Change.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2003.
100. Smith, JP III, deSessa AA, and Roschelle J. Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. J Learn Sci
3: 115163, 1993.
103. Svinicki MD. A theoretical foundation for discovery learning. Advan
Physiol Educ 20: 4 7, 1998.
104. Tamir P and Zohar A. Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning
about biological phenomena. Sci Educ 75: 57 67, 1991.
105. Towns MH and Grant ER. I believe I will go out of this class actually
knowing something: cooperative learning activities in physical chemistry. J Res Sci Teach 34: 819 835, 1997.
106. Van der Vleuten CPM, Dolmans DHJM, and Scherpbier AJJA. The
need for evidence in education. Medical Teacher 22: 246 250, 2000.
107. Volpe EP. The shame of science education. Am Zoologist 24: 433441, 1984.
107a.Vosniadou A and Ortony S (editors). Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989.
108. Walczyk JJ and Ramsey LL. Use of learner-centered instruction in college
science and mathematics classrooms. J Res Sci Teach 40: 566 584, 2003.
110. West LHT and Pine AL (editors). Cognitive Structure and Conceptual
Change. Orlando, FL: Academic, 1985.
111. Wilke RR and Straits WJ. The effects of discovery learning in a
lower-division biology course. Advan Physiol Educ 25: 62 69, 2001.
112. Wosilait K, Heron PL, Shaffer PS, and McDermott LC. Development
and assessment of a research-based tutorial on light and shadow. Am J
Physics 66: 906 913, 1998.
113. Zohar A and Ginossar S. Lifting the taboo regarding teleology and
anthropomorphism in biology education heretical suggestions. Sci Educ
82: 679 697, 1998.
30 DECEMBER 2006
167